صعوبة المقابلة الشخصية بالانجليزي

 تقرير  برجراف فقرة برزنتيشن بحث موضوع ملخص جاهز باللغة الانجليزية  انشاء

ـ موضوع انجليزي عن ابدا موضوع تعبير بالانجليزي قصير كيفية كتابة موضوع تعبير باللغة الانجليزية توجيهي قواعد كتابة تعبير بالانجليزي طريقة سهلة لكتابة تعبير بالانجليزي

موضوع تعبير انجليزي يصلح لكل المواضيع كتابة تعبير بالانجليزي عن نفسك

كيفية كتابة paragraph باللغة الانجليزية كتابة تعبير بالانجليزي عن المستقبل وصف

تعبير انجليزي يصلح لكل المواضيع موضوع انشاء شامل لكل المواضيع موضوع تعبير عربي يصلح لجميع المواضيع موضوع تعبير انجليزي جاهز برجراف ينفع لاى موضوع

صعوبة المقابلة الشخصية بالانجليزي

التعريف بالنفس في المقابلة الشخصية بالانجليزي

نموذج مقابلة شخصية باللغة الانجليزية

اسئلة واجوبة مقابلة شخصية بالانجليزي

اسئلة المقابلة الشخصية بالانجليزي للمعلمين

نموذج مقابلة بالانجليزي

مقابله بالانجليزي قصيره

اسئلة الانترفيو باللغة الانجليزية واجاباتها

اسئلة الانترفيو واجاباتها النموذجية بالانجليزي

The difficulties of the interview

An essential tool of social psychology, the interview carries with it all the difficulty of the truth in human relationships; it has aroused, and will still arouse, a gigantic critical and methodological work, be it the questionnaire interview or the non-directive interview. I will not discuss here the problems of choice of categories, coding, but essentially questions about the structure of the interview, as an interpersonal relationship. The essential problem is that of the validity of the interview, that is to say its adequacy in relation to the reality that we tried to know. The operational minimum of validity is the fidelity, which is verified by the concordance of the results obtained by different investigators.

The interview is obviously based on the most dubious and richest source of all, speech. It constantly risks concealment or fabulation.

The closed question contains an intimidating alternative, imposes a schema, and risks the maximum error, while on another front, that of coding, interpretation, exploitation, it offers the maximum guarantees. The open question, the spontaneous answer, bear (and especially for the deep analysis) in the fabulation, a truthful meaning, a significant richness: but this time the maximum risk of error lies on the side of the investigator, of his ability to decipher the interviewee's message, its ability to make a comparison, in short to turn a raw human document into scientific data.

What appears more and more is that it is absurd to ask closed questionnaires on problems where the true attitude escapes the clear conscience of the interviewee, where the answers are commonly justificatory. Similarly, preformed responses are unable to capture deep motivation in so many areas. So to the question: "Why are you going to the movies? response patterns such as: - to entertain me; - to educate me; - to spend an evening - etc. are unable to grasp the deep motivation and truthful motivation.

In addition, experience has shown that the wording of the question plays a role in guiding the response. A seemingly innocuous word can change the answers. It is also known that the order of the questions and the number of questions influence the answers.

In short, everything in the interview depends on an interviewer / interviewer interaction, a small closed field where confront, confront or associate with gigantic social, psychological and emotional forces.

Various disturbing factors may occur in the interviewee:

- As far as the questions of fact are concerned, the answers will tend to be fabulous or dissimulative with regard to the big taboo regions: sex, religion, politics. On this last plane, the suspicions will be more or less great, depending on whether the regime of the country where the questions are asked is liberal or not, or according to the minority or not, subversive or not, political opinions of the interviewee.

Out of taboos, considerations of prestige, standing, can skew the answers.

- With regard to the questions of opinion and belief, consciousness weakens all the more as one goes deeper into motivation. This is most often obscure in the interviewee or it is securely masked by a system of rationalization. To tell the truth, it is difficult to enter this zone. Asked about the reason for his opinions, the interviewee only delivers the rationalization systems that he secretes in response to the investigation.

In an extremely diverse way, according to the social and historical situation, the psychological determination, the climate and the character of the interview, the interviewees react to the interview by:

- the inhibition which results in a blocking pure and simple, or by a leak (answer to side);

- shyness or caution, which leads to polite answers, according to the pleasure they believe they will provide to the investigator; which result in the tendency to answer yes rather than no, by the tendency (caution) to opt for the middle digit when the choice of a percentage is proposed;

- mechanisms of attention and inattention (in preformed responses, tendency to choose the point of view of head or that of tail);

- the multiple tendencies to rationalize one's point of view, that is to say, to give it an apparent justification and legitimacy that masks its true nature. The rationalizations are "sincere";

- Exhibitionism, which leads very sincerely (it is obviously the term of sincerity which must be rethought) fabrications and comedies.

- and, of course, the fundamental tendencies to defend one's person and to compose the characters with regard to another curious person. Among the disturbing factors that come from the interviewer is its appearance in the eyes of the interviewee. The interviewee must feel an optimum of distance and proximity, and also an optimum projection and identification with respect to the interviewer. The interviewer must correspond to a nice and reassuring image. Often the interviewer will be better communicator than the interviewer. There can not be a universal model of investigator, who would be the urban investigator of modern cities (correct dress, politeness, without excess of refinement or snobbery). But for this report to be operative, the investigator must have, first, a strong self-critical control over himself, it has been found that his opinion, his predictions, unconsciously influenced the responses to the interview; his attitude during the interview, his reactions, even if not very perceptible, have an influence; the investigator must also have a deep interest in communication, for others. It is not enough that he seems friendly, he must have sympathy.

Finally, we see that the more the person of the interviewee is important in the interview, and it is always more important when one wants to go deeper, the interviewer's person is important.

The interviewer must have a rare degree of objectivation and subjective participation. Which means that the investigator should be a morally and intellectually superior person, he should be at the height of a secular confessor role in modern life.

But here we come up against a problem that is currently insoluble in the system of the human sciences (except in clinical psychology). The interview is generally a junior livelihood, a back-up job for slightly cultured women, a step for future researchers. This is the lesser task that team leaders discharge. The methodological research of the greatest wealth leads us to privilege the in-depth interview, that is to say an area where the technical precautions and the methodological rules give way to this human factor which is related to art, subtlety and sympathy. The human factor, first annulled by the statistical technical tendencies of the interview, reappears in triumph at the end of the methodologically critical analysis.

This is because the interview provokes itself (because it is an intrusion that can appear traumatic, or aggressive to the interested party) a gigantic defense system. But at the same time, the interview is aimed at a gigantic need to express oneself.

Rogers' brilliant and childish discovery consists in breaking the subject's defense system by the need to express the subject himself.